I've never heard a good argument for monarchy, and I've heard plenty of debates on the subject. Unfortunately, these debates get misdirected by daft claims about tourism, "hard-working" royals or the importance of a hereditary monarch in defending our constitution. Platitude, myth, and sentimentality get in the way of a desperately needed challenge to inherited power and wealth, the significant failings of the royal household and the detrimental impact of monarchy on our nation's political life.
The royals have been embroiled in scandal after scandal for more than two years, yet politicians turn a blind eye, thereby highlighting what's wrong with an institution that rests on deference and mythology. It's been argued that we should be careful how much we challenge the royals in case we inadvertently bring the whole edifice down. But if challenging an institution causes its collapse, then it doesn't deserve to survive. We should build our democracy on stronger foundations than those that crumble under the pressure of scrutiny.
As a rule of thumb, we should treat the royals just as we treat MPs and ministers. They are public officials; they hold public titles, and we fund and subsidize them to perform a public role. As such their personal conduct, public appearances, and questions about probity, integrity and, of course, their effectiveness in the role should all be open for blunt, honest debate.
The problem is that if such a debate were to happen, the royals would be gone quicker than you can say Fortnum & Mason. Prince Andrew remains suspected and accused of serious sexual offenses, Prince Charles has been reported to the police for alleged cash-for-honors payments to his charities and has since been caught receiving more than £2 million in cash from a former Qatari politician who stands accused of links to Al Qaeda and human rights abuses. The whole royal family stand accused of routine abuse of public money, spending millions of pounds of government funding on their own lifestyles, including their multitude of palatial homes and heavily polluting flights around the country by private or RAF jet and by helicopter.
If one of these accusations had been leveled at a government minister, they would be gone, because while not proven illegal, it is still an abuse of public office for personal gain, (the definition of corruption) or, at the very least an appalling lapse in judgement. But the royals are protected by official secrecy, on the one hand, and a collective turning of the blind eye by politicians on the other.
